Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology: Difference between revisions

Project Chanology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Project Chanology has received attention from various news channels, but right now it would be a "recentism" to keep it. The project has hacked Scientology websites, causing minor problems to the church internationally, but there aren't any real long-term consequences to all this yet. There's also a COI thing here, as the article has been edited several times by users that are obviously involved with 4chan and the Project. Wikipedia is not the place to bring propaganda, this should be merged with Scientology and the internet.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 23:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Keep 100,000+ people working towards a common goal with no expectations of reward other than the possible end of a dangerous and vicious cult are notable enough I'd think! I'd also suspect a rather large proportion of the people wanting it deleted are actually Scientologists so that might want to be kept in mind, I don't think it will ever be possible to reach consensus on this issue though Hideki (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a notable event as evident in recent media coverage as well as widespread internet discussion on a variety of forums. The article is well written, and concise and must be kept not to be merged with similar anti-scientology movements as it is unique in that "anonymous" is not a distinguishable group or party Biowza —Preceding comment was added at 08:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep S and the Internet is about THEIR use of the internet, not attacks against them ON the internet. In addition, the article may be about a current event. But the goal of this event is to eradicate scientology. Don't you think we should hold out until it's obvious that this has succeeded or not? Do you really think that hundreds or thousands of pissed citizens are going to give up after a week of DDoS attacks? You really think that after all the credence Anonymous is giving to Feb 10, and after all the media attention and all their vows, that nothing more will come of this? DDoS attacks and some short clips about 'hackers on steroids' on Fox11? We need to wait this event out. The Cold War wasn't settled in a week. Or a month. Or a year. 24.193.52.251 (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep it is still going to be notable at the end of this, I think most can agree on that. The page should be semi-protected as soon as possible to stop the soapboxing and I have watchlisted the page as I expect much more vandalism by the /i/nsurgents. By the way, 4chan doesn't really have anything to do with this and are try to distance themselves as far away as possible. BJ^Talk 23:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Editors who are relatively new to Wikipedia should read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion carefully. AfDs are not simple voting contests and large numbers of "Me too!" entries will tend to be discounted. Here is a previous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology organizations sample. AndroidCat (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As stated in WP:RECENT, recentism alone doesn't justify deletion. As for the conflict of interest: it's a common problem for WP, but we shouldn't throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. mistercow (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Recentism alone isn't a reason for deletion. Any other concerns raised by the nom (WP:COI, for instance) can be handled without a deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge This is notable in some sense as it's being reported on by numerous news sources. While I think it's still a bit early to see how much damage will be done, at this point, it deserves, at the very least, a decent mention if not its own article. InsaneZeroG (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete change to Merge to Scientology and the Internet. The topic itself is not notable. The issue of DDOS attacks is notable, and Attacks on Scientology is notable. Should each different instance of an attack on Scientology have its own article? Should each example of a DDOS attack have its own article? A practical problem - how many of the extensive article links will work in a month? Answer this question and you get a practical numerical value for the 'decay rate' of the topic's importance. A high decay rate means not notable. Slofstra (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A high decay rate of what? Are all the newspapers linked going to suddenly pull their articles? BJ^Talk 01:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    They do just that, typically archiving after a few days to paid subscriber only status. Slofstra (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note on change - a good encyclopedia synthesizes information not just a processor of minutiae. Agree with merge suggestion below.Slofstra (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with InsaneZeroG (talk · contribs) and with Bjweeks (talk · contribs) from above, that the subject of the article is already notable. But I think that it is quite likely that it will continue to get more notable. I don't really think it needs to be a "Speedy" Keep, we can continue to have a regular process for this. The subject has already received coverage in Sky News, United Press International, Slashdot, National Nine News, CNET News (currently viewable as one of the top articles on Google News), National Post, Wired, New Zealand Herald, Xinhua News Agency, PC World, as well as television coverage on multiple websites including websites of NBC, ABC, and CBS among others. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The speedy keep was unwise in hindsight, I did it partly because I think the debate should be held after the "attacks" are over. BJ^Talk 01:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. :) Cirt (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is very notable, and has been covered in many notable news programs. If you don't spend a lot of time on the rest of the internet, you may not know how notable Anonymous and their other activities are. geeky (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no questions about it. I know I'm supposed to assume good faith, but I can't help but wonder about the neutrality of pushing for a deletion of the article at this juncture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damuna (talk • contribs) 02:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the lulz Podcito (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. Q ^{T C} 03:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The sources are just too adequate for me to want to vote delete. Encyclopedic enough.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I disagree that this should be merged into "Scientology and the Internet". That article is a description of how S uses the internet, not how S is attacked by another group. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: Afd is not the correct forum for a merge proposal. The notability of the topic of this article is proven beyond all reasonable doubt by its non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources not limited to Wired, National Post, PC World. CNET News, Baltimore City Paper, FOX News and Edmonton Sun. WP:RECENT is an essay; WP:V is policy. This ridiculous nomination should be swiftly withdrawn and the discussion moved to the article's talkpage. Skomorokh ^confer 03:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: ..or weak keep, per most of the above. Markusbradley (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article is very nicely written and well sourced. And as per all of the above Calicore (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. One of Wikipedia's strengths is its ability to collate and summarize reporting on current events. This is not a weakness. The suggestions of WP:RECENTISM, if implemented, would greatly harm this project. --FOo (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: The fact that it is still ongoing and developing alone is enough to nominate to keep. Given the preponderance of media coverage and the well written detail covered by the article a merge would be a disservice to Wikipedia but a nomination for deletion is really hard to take in good faith. --AlexCatlin (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep+Protect: This has had major media coverage around the world (and getting on KNBC and Sky News all in the same day is truly big). ViperSnake151 04:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - I had previously put in a request at WP:RFPP which was fulfilled w/ Semi-Protect til February 1st - so if we're seeing vandalism from new users, I don't know how that's possible. Check the article protect log - Project Chanology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cirt (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I added the missing {{sprotect2}} template. BJ^Talk 04:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does adding that template thingy change anything, or is it just a notification? Cirt (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just a notification. BJ^Talk 05:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep news worthy event, well referenced. —Pengo 04:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia news covered it and it's still unfolding. The Anonymous YouTube alone is logging astronomical hits. --Piepie (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep+Protect This is notable not only as a current event, but a glimpse into how modern information warfare might be waged. This alone makes it relevant. Sreyan (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Project Chanology is a notable current event receiving considerable media attention. While current events themselves may be frowned upon in Wikipedia, it concentrates more on its conflict with Scientology. Since the YouTube video declaring war has garnered over one million views in five days, I believe at the very least Project Chanology will be (at least in the future) considered a historic event. Though it is still developing, it is not being written from the perspective of a current event so much as it is being written based on its purpose, which is to combat Scientology. Detractors above have asked "Should every DDOS attack have its own article?" To which I reply, has every DDOS attack received international media coverage? I'd also like to note that the DDOS attacks are only a small part of Project Chanology, which can be easily seen by anybody that researches it. HoCkEy PUCK (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: HoCkEy PUCK (talk · contribs), please do not add links to copyvio stuff from YouTube on Wikipedia, it's a violation of policy, and it's not needed. Of course, original user-created stuff or free-use stuff from YouTube would be fine. Cirt (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Recentism that does not, at present, deserve a separate article in an encyclopedia. It is sufficiently well covered at WikiNews, a more appropriate venue for such. Promoting this at this early stage does not reflect well on the project. The article can be rebuilt at any time if this turns out to be more than a flash-in-the-pan. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia has a long precedent of covering news events as they happen, how is this any different? AfD is not a venue to deny recognition because you find the groups activities harmful. BJ^Talk 05:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your (justahulk) edits and commentary all fiercly support pro-scientology bias. Markusbradley (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable. Hail Xenu. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep My reasons are given on Talk:Project Chanology. Scetoaux (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My reasons given there were archived. I am electing to copy+paste my pitch here. I couldn't do that last night, since I was editing on my iPod Touch:
    • I am convinced that this is a perfect example of the power that Internet groups can have. While not in complete agreement, Anonymous has declared war against the CoS. Anybody with knowledge of Anonymous still has no true idea of their capabilities, since very few people can truly appreciate or understand just how big this group is. It is quite possible that Anon may actually exceed the total worldwide membership of the CoS. Something else that arises from one's understanding of Anon is just how difficult it is to stop a group of this size. This isn't a bunch of script kiddies on a single website, but a collective from a larger group of sites. This event is far from its conclusion. Scetoaux (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To reiterate the point I made at Talk:Scientology notability has been proven, Wikipedia has always had articles that comment on current events and this particular event could end up being very important in the history of Scientology. --Mcr hxc (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even my parents knew about this event. --Phiren (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just the referencing alone is impressive, particularly considering that this article is only 2 days old. It appears well-written; it's fairly neutral, completely verified, and (amazingly) notable. Placing the content in any related articles would either make those articles too long (Scientology) or take up a disproportionately large portion of a more focused topic (Scientology and the Internet) given the large amount of pertinent and verifiable information on the subject. However, a small mention should probably be made in the latter article with a link to this main one, though that's just an extra picky thing. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very significant internet event--Cs california (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and Protect Very well-referenced article documenting a current event that has received significant media coverage. Few YouTube videos pass 1 million views. Anonymous' declaration of war is (by far) the #1 most viewed and discussed video this week on Youtube. WP:CENSOR WP:BUILD WP:IGNORE WP:POINT WP:GAME Some scientologist admins are trying to push a pro-scientology POV by deleting articles critical of Scientology, no matter how well verified they are. Deletion of this article would be POV-pushing since many topics with fewer reliable sources/notability have their own articles. Because of the volatility of this article, it should not be merged yet. Jwray (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First off I think it would be hard to prove the second and third point in the origional comment, those beeing the Coi and propaganda. The only reason editors are bringing up for deletion that I can see from this discussion is because it is a recent event, that in itself dosn't denote deletion. I origionaly wanted this to be deleted, however in the past few days it has become a well writen article. If someone wants it to be deleted, I think they really should reference the article itself, and not knee jerk a decision because of past policy.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to those saying "Protect": The article is already semi-protected. There is no need for a full protect. Cirt (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Anonymous Keep this article, i'm sure scientology wants this article to be closed but free speech is a must! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.89.177 (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC) — 77.248.89.177 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This event has already been seen in several notable news sources, and the article is very well-written.--Piemanmoo (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article warrants at mention, it has had significant media coverage, and the youtube anonymous message has has 1 million + views. It looks liek it will be a significant internet event. It is not a matter of number of votes for keep/delete or merge. Scientology vs internet is about the actions of scientology on the internet, censorship and the like, not an event like this. the article stands on it's own for that reason, it it fails/stalls/degrades into obscurity then it can be merged into scientology vs the internet. Fredcar (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While abstaining from specifics, it should be mentioned that this "effort" has led to the disclosure of thousands of pages of previously unreleased internal Scientology documents. While the effects of the DDoS attacks are likely to be fleeting, the online furor and the leaked documents are much more likely to have a lasting impact. deranged bulbasaur 08:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This event has already been reported on in the news and looks like it will continue to be reported on. It is also part of Internet history as Wikinews was the first to break the news and also the first time an Internet war of this scope has spilled over into real life and involved an organization on the scale of Scientology. Also, this is one of the first few examples of an emerging trend of hacktivism, which adds to the historical value of keeping this entry. Finally, the group behind this event has been around for a while even before their "war with Scientology" and I expect that they will continue being active in one form or another, regardless of the results with Scientology. Kainee (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Anonymous already seems bored and has lost. I see this as a low threat. Deleting it would only be suppressing freedom of speech. Memphisartguy (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC) — Memphisartguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cirt (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing Admin: I have been watching the comments as they come in - though the warning header at the top of this AfD discussion is appropriate, I have only noticed two Single-purpose accounts so far, and have tagged them as such. To the best of my knowledge, the majority of the comments here, both keeps/deletes, what have you, are from established editors. I will continue to monitor new comments. Cirt (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly notable. Has received attention from various news channels. Maxamegalon2000 09:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep , while I'm not related with any of the groups mentioned in this article and consider myself neutral on this, I do have an opinion about it. Given alone the fact that Project Chanology consists of a variety of Virtual Communities most of them usally at "war" but under these circumstances working together on a worldwirde basis could be considered a special (not unique) Event. Digging trough the media coverage it had since it's offical start, on January 16 , also hints that there will be a lot more articles/reports coming. Mrkeks (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC) — Mrkeks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cirt (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing Admin: It appears that this user has already commented once previously with a "keep" sentiment in this AfD, please see above. Cirt (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC) - See below. Cirt (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to Cirt I commented on this topic unregistered first , registered afterwards and replaced my IP Adress with my new User Name thats all, I even replaced my IP in your "few or no other edits" - tag so you don't have to do it twice. Mrkeks (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, in that case, that's fine - just strike out one of your comments, using <s></s> Cirt (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nevermind, it appears I made a mistake and mixed you up with Memphisartguy (talk · contribs). Someone correct me if I'm wrong in this. Cirt (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep very good article and a very important topic. this needs to stay. --83.82.227.26 (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC) — 83.82.227.26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cirt (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NPOV and verifiable.98.203.237.75 (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ten Pound Hammer and LaMenta3. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are a lot of wikipedia articles out there less relevant than this. -- CurlyJ (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regards, Skomorokh ^confer 13:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. :) -- CurlyJ (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This looks like WP:SNOW. --RucasHost (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I think it's always a good idea with a topic that's got the potential to be controversial like this one - to allow process to continue and let the AfD run its course. But I will respectfully defer that decision to whoever the closing Admin is, and I'm sure whatever that Admin decides will be fine. Cirt (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is practically all over the news and the internet HiddenWolf (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one good article showing thruth about "scientology" --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. As mentioned above, this article definitely meets WP:N in several ways, and is a current event relating to a major website. Hence, strong keep. Qst 14:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The organization appears to be notable for exactly one event (it would be hard to be notable for more than one, considering its only TWELVE DAYS OLD). This articles is a poster child for the "short burst of news reports" exception in WP:Notability, in spite (indeed, because) of the volume of news coverage. gnfnrf (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Considering it's only TWELVE DAYS OLD, how on earth can you possibly justify judging the significance of this topic to be a "short burst of news reports"?! Arguing that something should be deleted after a short period for being a topic that is only notable over a short period seems positively contradictio in terminis. Skomorokh ^confer 16:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • And yet, wp:notability is clear that speculation as to future coverage does not confer notability, so yes, it is just a short burst. Essentially, I believe the hurdle for topics in the wiki whose very concepts covered are less than a few months old is very high. In nearly all cases, waiting to see if the idea sticks is the right course of action, as it is in this one. If this idea fizzles, and in 5 years, all that happened was that some people organized on the internet and DDoSed some Scientology websites for a few weeks, it would merit a mention in an article, but not an article itself. Because we don't know if that will happen or not, for now, there shouldn't be an article. gnfnrf (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, It would seem with the amount of coverage this is getting in online media, as well as national news coverage, it would be a notable event and something worth keeping. Murray-Mint-UK (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multinational media reports, well referenced article Raerth (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well reported around the world in the media. The project is ongoing and clearly having a major impact around the net and on Scientology. Also, since the article is so new, it seems premature to try and delete it (Scientology attack maybe?) and it seems likely that the article will expand and continue to improve as events unfold. Mojo-chan (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or at best (substantially trimmingly) Merge or Redirect to Scientology and the Internet. Seriously, what makes this particular DDoSing and protest campaign so remarkable? We don't cover every DDoS incident, covering protests is pretty rare (Saffron Revolution this ain't). This is basically a news article; sure, you can puff it up to tremendous proportions by adding media mentions, but nothing changes the fact that this is basically a news story puffed up with, pardon the expression, newsbitcruft. There's little encyclopedic material here that we'd care about in distant future. Don't take me wrong, this should covered in WM projects, it's just that Wikipedia isn't the place. Wikinews stories on this incident are enough in my opinion (and very informative, fascinating, and very much needed in my opion); making encyclopaedia articles so soon is problematic for many reasons. Mentions of this in appropriate articles is enough. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it may very well be true that this does not turn into anything more than a brief news story, but isn't it somewhat premature to make that judgment after less than a fortnight? Skomorokh ^confer 17:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Premature is exactly why the article does not belong in Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, we take a longer view and are in no hurry. Better to wait a month or two and see if this becomes anything rather than become the observer that influences the occurrence, which I hope is not the point of the article. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be an argument against the article's creation, not in favour of it's deletion. It's not a case of deciding whether or not to wait and see - someone has already created the article and it has been augmented with sources that clearly meet the notability threshold. I think any negative observer effect is a rather small risk given that the article is so heavily watched, and on the positive side, the legions of people coming to Wikipedia from news reports about this will be well informed on an important topic, surely the point of this encyclopedia. Skomorokh ^confer 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duly admitted. However, "news articles" on relatively minor incidents like this have to be revisited later on, in one form or another, and evaluated in broader historical context. It's probably going to be a growing headache. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to nominate newsy articles whose subject has not appeared in sources for a few months, but I think this could go either way; an insignificant and ultimately empty threat from bored kids or one of the first large scale crowdsourced co-ordinated campaigns of cyberware. Let's wait til Summer before writing it off. Skomorokh ^confer 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance for sarcasm, but is there a new rule I was not informed of? Something along the lines of "All news article AfDs have to assume there will be buzzword-inducing notability in the future"? =) Nothing against you, I just see this a lot. By all means, we should review this article again in summer (or failing that next January), with less buzzwords. And in two years, absolutely no buzzwords. And in three years, the whoever says a buzzword will be Arbcom'd AfD. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - multiple reliable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC) — 87.194.210.172 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge, This documents a notable case, this isn't a mere mish-mash group of basement dwellers using Gigaloader on their websites, this has been taken to the streets as well. At the very least merge it with the article about Scientology and the Internet.--Opacic (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and Do Not Merge, this has been covered by multiple notable news sites and has even been mentioned on TV, acknowledged by many members of the CoS, as well as being one of the largest DoS attacks to date. ThunderPower (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable, and unsuited for merging. Vman81 (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC) — Vman81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Absolutely notable, has received coverage both in digital and old media. --Kaini (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rewrite Notable and currently well reported and citable, but current article is not in keeping with Wikipedia writing style. Keep, but tidy up. Patch86 (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball Keep notable, reliable sources, media attention, significance... what else do we need ? :) --Raistlin (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sort of assurance that the nominator's (very valid) concerns are addressed? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to the "Snowball" part of the "keep" from Raistolo (talk · contribs) - I would again reiterate that with a topic as controversial as this one, my personal opinion to the Closing Admin would be to let the process run its course, and allow the community to give full input. But again, I'll respectfully defer to the Closing Admin on this, whatever they decide will be fine. Cirt (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This documents a current event, Does not violate copyrights and only documents what a cult does not want you to read ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.224.109 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC) — 71.245.224.109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Cirt (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sourced article, recieved considerable coverage across all media, if the page is being used for propaganda, there are better ways to deal with it than just deleting it--Kip Kip 19:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepIt is an important project that is getting a lot of news coverage. User:SuperRadX27 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 20:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - regarding COI mentioned in nomination, would a Scientologist be permitted to edit the article, or would that be COI too? Just a thought -- Bobyllib (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: The Arbitration Committee stuck their toe in the water on that one, you may wish to read up a bit at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS, and at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS. Obviously no one is going to stop someone from editing anything solely based on their beliefs - but the ArbComm case under "Final decision", section 11 1.6, specifically pertains to editors that are deemed to be "Multiple editors with a single voice." Read it, it's interesting. Cirt (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is indeed interesting. Thanks! --Bobyllib (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If it maintains momentum then it ought to be kept, if however it dies out then move it to Scientology and the Internet. - LamontCranston (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, AND Defer AfD for a few months The fact that multiple news organizations have reported on this, I don't see why we can't just revisit the subject a few months down the road.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice. A non-notable, unsuccessful "attack" by an unorganized group of 14-year-olds from ebaumsworld that has achieved no notable results nor response from anyone else in society is not worth an entire article. We might as well start covering senior pranks in high schools. This barely deserves an entry in the "internet memes" article, much less an entire article on its own.—Perceval 21:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, apart from the fact that this has received international media coverage? Blue Mirage (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Even though I'm usually for keeping articles, this one is barely notable and it is certainly not verifiable. It barely deserves an entry in the 4chan article, as Perceval said.--Orthologist (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article is of high quality. Recentism and CoI don't justify deletion, or all Scientology-related articles would have to be deleted. Foobaz·o< 21:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Newsworthy and well written article. 59.167.244.67 (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete On the grounds that this phenomenon is an extremely transitory one. I understand the publicity it has gotten gives a feeling of it having merit, but writing this article is much more akin to writing an article on every middle-school fad that happens to reach more than a couple schools via the internet. It is my sincere hope that Wikipedia's editors refuse to be misled about the significance of project chanology. This article has no staying power one would expect from a genuine encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrotherGeorge (talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete There isn't a wikipedia article made for every news story written. This event is not significant enough to warrant its own article. MAYBE a blurb in some sub-section in the events of the Scientology article, but only if it picks up momentum. Squierhater01 (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No, but there have been many news stories written about this "project." It's been reported multiple times by press agencies across the world. Clearly the established media considers it newsworthy, and Wikipedia is essentially just a conglomeration of established media sources when it comes to current events. JHMM13^(Disc) 06:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Good article --Andrews Palop (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on the promotion of cyberterrorism It is relevant to this discussion that we be fully aware of what we are "promoting" as in "elevating:, elevating to the level of encyclopedic. Let's just take a look at who we are elevating to a level where their attacks and announcements are worthy of encyclopedic coverage even before they prove to be anything. See the Fox11 report, the first hit on this search (I will not link directly to a copyright violation but this is worth seeing). And as regards my use of the term:

  "Cyber-terrorism is the leveraging of a target's computers and information technology, particularly via the Internet, to cause physical, real-world harm or severe disruption of infrastructure."

  Does that sound like anything that Anonymous might be involved with. Death threats, bomb threats, ruining people's lives; all for the lulz. Watch the Fox11 video if you have any doubts. --JustaHulk (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is refactored to the essence of my issue as regards the recentism of this article and the appropriateness of jumping on the Chanology bandwagon. The discussion previously here has been moved to talk as it included some off-topic issues. --JustaHulk (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This is still a very off-topic post by this user, has nothing to do with assessing WP:NOTE, and is in violation of WP:NOT#FORUM. Cirt (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment. Your editing history and willingness to invoke spurious arguments both speak to vested interests in removing this article that have nothing to do with the quality of this encyclopedia. --Kajerm (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At least wait to see what goes down on February 10th, since there should supposedly be some goings-on then. With the "fourth wave" being planned for January 30th, I don't think this thing is over yet. Aside from that, it's seen coverage on a couple television broadcasts (NBC Local and Sky News) along with a myriad of Internet sources. If something like Punta El Chiquirín is a worthy enough article, this should be, as well. Cham Zord (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • *facepalm.jpg* --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep or weak merge. From what I can tell, this is one of the first "internet vs. real-world organization" insurgencies to receive such wide-reaching media coverage. Depending on further development, the article should be kept (if more meaningful incidents occur) or at least warrant a paragraph in Scientology vs. the Internet, even if no further meaningful events come out of it. Blackhole89 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: The events which have unfolded in the past week are momentous as evidenced by not just by mainstream news reporting but by the numbers on the user generated "web 2.0" portals. We could be witnessing more than just the birth of the latest internet meme but birth of a new form of online social activism. The issues of freedom of speech, copyright as it relates to religion and the individual in the 21st century are all touched on by this event for that alone this entry should be kept (with a unique page) and protected in the coming weeks and months.--Ason Abdullah (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because there's many less notable internet related things you should be deleting.--Seriousspender (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep this event is not only newsworthy now, but will be newsworthy in the years to come as a reference for people looking for information on the history of scientology and it's online prescence. STRONG KEEP. —msphina 20:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.70.127 (talk) [reply]
• Strong Delete with prejudice.12.46.87.210 (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC) — 12.46.87.210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cirt (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentI deleted 12.46's comment due to offensive and unproffessional terminology contained within comment, however s/he did voice an opinion. this was their "vote".Coffeepusher (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the amount of edits a user makes, or the topics of those edits, determine whether or not the article is worthy of being kept? I seriously doubt that this is a good reason to delete an article. Otherwise we would have to delete almost everything!Sukiari (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a good judge of "Single Perpose accounts". Also since a major consern within this AfD is the fact that it has been accused of "propoganda" and "COI" we want to make shure that people from "Project Chanology" don't each make up multipal accounts, voice their opinion, and create another account, voice the same opinion, etc (WP:SOCK). right now that dosn't seem to be an isue though, but it dosn't hurt to check.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Relatively easy to determine, really. Just check the contribs history. Has the user contributed something earlier than a coupla weeks ago? We shouldn't really limit regular Wikipedia editors if they aren't heavy contributors - but certainly brand-new accounts and anon-ips with little to no edits - doesn't hurt to note those. Cirt (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep more notable then most of the articles around here. --DonelleDer (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC) — DonelleDer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cirt (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Keep: I've editing on Wikipedia on several different accounts for 4 or 5 years now, and I've seen articles with no serious sources and no notability be "strong keep." This "Project" is gaining wide media coverage in NBC, ABC, CNET, and SkyNews, and MOST OF ALL, Wikinews. There are organized worldwide protests— I didn't know Wikipedia had an article on this, but I will definitely be contributing to this article as much as I can. Mac Davis (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is noteworthy and newsworthy. It meets all the requirements for an article, and therefore the fact that it is even up for deletion is ludicrous. On a sidenote, it is extremely disconcerting that this AfD even exists. It is clear JustaHulk/Justanother is using this AfD nom to push his own POV even though it represents a seriously conflict of interest. His repeated attempts to derail the conversation and goad other editors into a fight is disheartening. Furthermore the AfD makes -- equally disturbingly -- no mention of the aforementioned editor's own COI given his position on Scientology. Using one conflict of interest and point of view to quash another, even when done through a proxy nominator, knowingly or unknowingly, does not serve the encyclopaedia. Professor Ninja (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This article is extremely noteworthy as it is really the first major time a large internet group has actively advanced against real-world organizations. Not only that, this group is large enough to potentially deal large amounts of damage. Keep, if only for the historical background after this is all over with. If Scientology falls because of this there would be no question of whether to keep this article or not. Xgamer4 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is newsworthy, it has been featured all over the world in the traditional media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.228.210.223 (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC) — User:201.228.210.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Ultra Strong +1000 Keep! This is extremely newsworthy and perhaps represents the first large scale vigilante attack over the Intertube. I can not imagine how this could be considered for deletion. Sukiari (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is an upcoming event that, if deleted, will be reposted within a week or two anyway. Kobra (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This article is noteworthy coverage of an ongoing story of significance. At present, Google News indicates there are over a hundred written news articles on it, as others have mentioned the mainstream television news is covering the story, NPR has covered it, etc. This isn't covering every news story ever written with a Wiki article, as some would frame it, this is covering a subject that has hit triple digits and climbing news articles. Media coverage aside, the organization Religious Freedom Watch has issued a $5,000 reward for the identities of those responsible for the attacks. Finally, contrary to assertions to the contrary, this is not the first time Anonymous has made the media, FOX did a story about them some months ago for their activities. Like them or not, they are a notable force on the internet and this is their most notable effort to date. Triumviron (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. - This is epic. Legendary even. The things history is made from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.104.64 (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC) — User:71.229.104.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Strong Keep. - Well Written, and needs protected. Gameguy15 (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)— User:Gameguy15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • It's already semi-protected. Blue Mirage (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Noteworthy - significant article showing the ramifications of the fight for free speech on the Internet.--Detonate (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fact that it's attracted global media attention to the point where it's hit some of the most well-known TV news programs makes it more than noteworthy. Blue Mirage (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are far less notable things already on Wikipedia. Also, there are articles that pertain to very few people while this pertains to at least a million, if not several million. --Metallurgist (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Evidence of the very issue the article describes. --Privatesafety (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC) — Privatesafety (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is clearly notable, with large numbers of good references. Even if the whole affair sputters to a halt tomorrow, it will be be notable enough for an article. Will Wikipedia be promoting cyberterrorism? No, a NPOV article from WP:RS cites isn't promotion. I do think that it will need to be combed for Original Research and non-Reliable Sources, but there are tags for that, and AfD isn't one of them. AndroidCat (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is a very notable story that Wikipedia should have a good article on if people want to know what is going on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.198.197 (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC) — 76.104.198.197 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cirt (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW, but also because WP:RECENT is not policy, it's an essay. The nom concedes WP:N, and it's obvious from the article it passes WP:V, I see no precident for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M2Ys4U (talk • contribs) 06:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would let the process run its course, because of the controversiality, to prevent renomination and to provide evidence for a review of any unilateral deletion. The last time something this controversial was speedy kept, it was unilaterally deleted a week later and upheld on review. See: Eugene Martin Ingram Jwray (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Part of the nature of Wikipedia is that it can be fast paced and perhaps even ephemeral, moving with the tides of current events. If this does happen to be a fad, then it can be revised as a section of another article later. However, the current nature of the document shall be important in creating that section at a later date, if this occurs. On that grounds, it should be kept until this event has run its course, and the decision be made at that date. --Mylon (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. This is evidently notable - scientology.org is still down. Please don't like Scientologists get away with this. Imagine Reason (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Heavily sourced. Recentism isn't a reason to delete, and most importantly notability does not degrade over time. There are 20~ odd sources today; there will be 20~ sources five years from now. Might be a footnote, but so what? We don't delete historical footnotes, or we'd be AFDing lots of articles on dead nobility from the 1500s. Lawrence § t/e 08:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Mainstream media coverage, excellent sourcing, and a notable event in the continuing controversy surrounding a notable organization. --Kajerm (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is too soon to unilaterally remove content from this encyclopedia. Information is information. I do not agree that it should be merged with a Scientology page since it is not a Scientology page. I do feel it should be given more time for proofreading and editing.--AveryG (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very, Very Strong Keep This issue is now gaining massive momentum and those partaking are not necessarily just a 'bunch of kids'. The term 'hacking' is extremely tenuous too as no Scientology websites have been 'hacked'. This is a grass-roots pan-individual/interest movement and it will become, in time, of critical social and cultural significance. Definitely keep.Ohsojib (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an issue about freedom of speech - why should a religious group have material removed from you-tube also Wikipedia should not hide behind content policies and protocols to uphold an act of censorship. I 've seen this happen recently with the Narre Warren party story Bebe Jumeau (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge, as appropriate. Something being recent isn't a good reason to bury the truth. -Aknorals (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep article clearly meets standards for wikification and notability Apelike (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This has received enough coverage in news outlets around the world to be noteworthy, however it should be both improved and protected Г^edʃtǁcɭ 12:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article well-written, well-sourced, and about a notable subject. CounterFX (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This article is well-sourced and written well enough to be on wikipedia. It is a big event that's getting alot of news coverage, and in my opinion is the first major example of an online "guerilla war".. in which random internet users join forces and make a direct attack on an established and powerful organization. It may be a recent news story, but I've often seen important current events on the main wikipedia, and this fits the bill. This could be end up being very notable, and enough people are interested already that it deserves an article. I don't think it should be merged, as it is unique and would not fit into other CoS articles. And it certainly should not be deleted... wikipedia should be able to record controversial subjects. - Bigdan201 (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep + semi-protect this is an important article regarding the current battle between the group and Scientology. There is no bias in the article, there is no 'hate speech' in is, nothing. No reason for deletion. Deku Scrubby (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note: The article is already semi-protected. Cirt (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Merely because an article is new or on an emerging topic does not mean that it is not encyclopedic. When this all pans out, the anonymous campaign is likely to be a big deal, even if it doesn't go any further than it already has (yes, I know wiki isn't a crystl ball). I am an inclusionist, and I see potential in this. The article needs to be monitored very heavily for NPOV and references have to be scrutinised, but otherwise it is a good article that is being worked on hard by the anonymous guys to get it to FA. Oppose merge as it doesn't fit in with the Scientology and the internet article. That article describes how the CoS has interacted with the internet, this describes the actions of an internet group against the CoS. IMHO, these are two very different topics. dr.alf (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Well written, international news coverage given, notable Nick123 ^(t/c) 13:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Judging by the amount of press and coverage, I would recommend that we simply maintain and keep this to Wikipedia standards. I don't see notability as an issue anymore after recent events. We might have made this page too early, but it is appropriate now. Vandalization might be an issue later on. capitocapito - Talk 13:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Certainly notable as a media phenomena. Has a lot of press coverage. Over week old so not so horribly recent. Certainly keep worthy even after this meme passes as a historic event. --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]